WASHINGTON Rick Perry, like other conservatives, has lots of complaints about the Supreme Court: The justices, he says, have meddled in social policy, stepped on state power and generally run amok.

One solution the governor embraces is to end lifetime tenure - a cornerstone of the Constitution, whose drafters worried far less about activist or senile judges than about meddling tyrants and political pressure.

The idea isn't original, and it's not limited to conservatives. Some scholars on the left have also embraced the idea as a correction for judges serving too long.

It began to percolate in the 1980s and '90s after a series of bruising Senate confirmation fights, although it's never gained much traction. A handful of bills and proposed constitutional amendments have been filed in Congress in recent years to little effect. But Perry's embrace of the idea, combined with his states' rights principles, may demonstrate how he would push as president to change the balance of power in the federal government.

Perry, in his anti-Washington book "Fed Up!," derides the high court as "nine oligarchs in robes" and writes: "We should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability."

Perry devotes an entire chapter to his indictment of the judiciary. The proposal to eliminate life tenure is barely a footnote, but that's enough to inspire sharp passions.

"Most lawyers would be against this," said Laurel Bellows, president-elect of the American Bar Association. "If you are a strict constructionalist - which apparently the governor isn't because he's looking to amend the Constitution - you would have respect for the wisdom of the Framers."

Perry's stance is remarkable in the sense that presidents have long viewed the power to shape the judiciary as one of the prizes that comes with winning the White House.

That's why the stakes are so high and the fights so fierce when a rare Supreme Court vacancy arises. It's a key reason President George W. Bush picked a 50-year-old conservative, John Roberts, as chief justice, planting seeds of a legacy that could persist for decades longer than his own presidency. And it's unclear if more frequent confirmation fights would insulate the judiciary or make it even more politicized.

At Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, president Nan Aron noted that five of nine current justices were appointed by Republicans.

Railing against the judiciary is an effective way for Perry to attract conservative voters, she said, but "I don't know that he's fully thought that through. ... He would want his judges to serve for life."

Paul Carrington, a Duke University law professor and former dean who has led the effort to impose term limits, agreed that the current system breeds arrogance.

He called it "nuts" to let octogenarians run the country. "It's ridiculous to have a person sitting in a position of that much power for 30 or 40 years," he said.

“Most lawyers would be against this,” said Laurel Bellows, president-elect of the American Bar Association. “If you are a strict constructionalist - which apparently the governor isn’t because he’s looking to amend the Constitution - you would have respect for the wisdom of the Framers.”

Utter crap. (The ABA is a leftist lawyer club).

Amending the Constitution is perfectly respectful of the framers.

The clear solution is to have 18 year staggered terms, with each Presidency nominating 2 justices, each Congress confirming one. Vacancies are filled by the sitting president to fill the remaining term.

Justices would be eligible for renomination.

6
posted on 09/02/2011 11:55:30 AM PDT
by Atlas Sneezed
(Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)

I don’t see a need for term limits. I see a need to impeach judges who think it’s legitimate to reference foreign law when deciding cases.

I also think we need to work on consititutional amendments that specifically define the commerce clause to stop them from giving the feds too much power. Making sure only people who respect original intent get installed as justices would certainly help, too!

Every time someone tries to tinker with what is NOT supposed to be a living document there are always unintended consequences. There is a reason they aren’t term limited. We have enough political game playing for power. Now we’re going to have it with our Supreme Court as well. Even if WE THE PEOPLE aren’t voting there’s going to be plenty of greased palms to make the court nothing more than pay to play politicians. No thanks.

It’s an interesting idea and I’d like to hear more about it before I make up my mind. One thing’s for certain, the SC has more power than it should and there were plenty of warnings about that at the time the constitution was created.

take the last line of the article.."it's ridiculous to ahve octogenarians runnign the country..in power for 30-40 years>"..and complete it..

AND THEN, LIKE BRENNAN, RETIRE WHEN THEY CHOOSE SO A PRESIDENT THEY LIKE CAN APPOINT THEIR SUCCESSORS..

Brennan and Souter BOTH waited for a Democrat in the WH before resigning...had McCain won, they'd BOTH still be on the Court..

Would we want to deprive ourselves of another 5-10 years of Scalia, or THomas..I think not...

Did Perry mention his idea for number of terms, and number of years for each term?

Persoanlly, I believe the problem is in the district courts..where advocacy groups forum show..to find a federal district judge who is inclined to hold with their view, and issue the desired ruling and/or injunction..

Hey Slick Rick. All the red meat you throw at conservatives is pretty clever, but now I want you to face a real challenge, OK? If you are elected, will you absolutely close the border? Will you send all the illegals home, however many millions there are? Will you quit subsidizing them and their anchor babies at taxpayers’ expense? (No, because we already know your record on that in TX.) What is your position on “free trade” with China? What is your position on intervention in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.? We haven’t heard a whimper from you on that, and that’s what being President is about, not hiding behind your “10th Amendment” rhetoric while the Left steals our country.

“All the red meat you throw at conservatives is pretty clever, but now I want you to face a real challenge, OK?”

Best said. As another poster pointed out, Conservatives want to preserve the Constitution, rather than continually change it. The problem is that so many people (quasi-conservative), are so disenchanted with the system, that they’re all for laws regulating much (or everything) that they personally don’t like. The problem (as other posters have alluded to on this thread), is that the shoe is frequently on the other foot.

Fixing the stupidly low number in the house of Representatives and removing/repealing the 17th amendment would be a good start at restoring the Constitutional Republic. Then impeachments could start rolling.

There are a whole lot of issues more important than this change (this aspect btw is NOT broken, in my opinion, the fact that no one gets impeached, including presidents, is the issue), and to focus on it is merely to inspire joy joy feelings in those who want to see a change to the way things are (not necessarily the system). To quote Mary Poppins, it’s a pie crust promise, “Easily made, easily broken.”

Slick Rick Perry has been in govt. for 27 years. He really had no other way of achieving the kind of power and wealth he has reached in politics. Now he wants to move up to the big leagues; that’s all. He knows that pretending to be a conservative will get him there. Are we foolish enough to give him what he wants? That’s the question.

Term limits will cure nothing. The problem is in the philosophy of the people selected. “A wise Latina,” “ I want to make a difference,” “power and pleasure,” “a corrupt body selecting the court members,” “the poor boy he was raised in the ghetto no wonder he robbed, raped and killed people!”

41
posted on 09/02/2011 12:16:00 PM PDT
by AEMILIUS PAULUS
(It is a shame that when these people give a riot)

Just rotate the Supreme Court position through the judges on the Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ and severely restrict the court's jurisdiction>

One way to do that is to have ONLY ONE JUDGE (which explains my grammar above) with NO CLERKS.

The Romans gave each Consul a 1 year term, with 2 Consuls elected ~ and each had a veto power over the other.

The Roman office was a bit restrictive since the 2 switched jobs every month, with one leading the army in war and the other sitting around sipping lattes with the Senators (or some such ~ there were disputes).

The thing is if it's advantageous to rein in the Court, then DO IT by reducing the number of judges and how long they serve.

Now, about the Circuit Courts ~ elect them on a schedule that never conflicts with a federal election for Congress or President. A 7 year term would probably work.

There are a variety of schemes out there to figure out how we would want to elect them ~ maybe proportional representation, party list voting, by states, by regions of the country ~ whatever. FUR SHUR don't let lawyers pick them. That hasn't been working out lately. In fact, we could PROHIBIT lawyers from participating in these elections.

Agreed. The idea that term limits fix anything, is, in my opinion, untrue. The problem is an ignorant populace, and that is NOT fixed by a term limit on one moron over his/her successor. And there are a whole slew of “burn the house on the way out” actions people take when their term is expiring. One can argue that we no longer need to wait two months before the seats become filled, and if the argument is that there are hiccups in some jurisdictions (with recounts and all), simply don’t let congress pass any edicts from on high until the next congress is seated, with the recount seats abstaining from the vote. Good heavens, the Congress can make both those rules themselves (not the date of the seating change, per say, but the last two).

They won’t because they are a corrupt set of thugs, but that comes to the correcting of the artifically low number of representatives and repeal of the 17th amendment, alluded to in my previous post.

It is the foundation of our republic and was observed until FDR. We are fast headed for tyranny because we the people have let judges make law, allowed Congress to assign lawmaking to unelected bureaucrats who make, execute and adjudicate “law” via Presidential diktats.

In 1788 when the constituting was ratified, the average life span was less than 60 years. In 1800 it was only 53 for males. So giving a life appointment didn't mean what it does today. We now have people on the bench for 40 years. That just wasn't possible when people on average only got to 53.

Having a SCOTUS justice stand for elections is a bad idea. Nor is having each president appoint the entire court. However an 18 year term with one judge up every other year, would ensure that no president could appoint more than half the justices, even if they got two terms. But it would help to keep the number of octogenarians off the court. If a judge retired or died in office a new judge would be appointed to fill out their term, hence maintaining the one every other year pattern.

49
posted on 09/02/2011 12:21:41 PM PDT
by GonzoGOP
(There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.